Progressive Retardation on guns

At ISideWith.com, someone posited a stance on whether or not there should be any background checks before the purchase of fire-arms.

“Libertarian in Paris, TN” said:

“no. the government has no right to tell an individual what products they can and cannot buy.”

Leave it up to progressives and other gun control zealots to come up with some of the most retarded types of responses imaginable from a logical point of view, in some cases a moral point of view, and as a result of omissions of important facts.

Let’s take a look, shall we?

“So by that logic, the government shouldn’t be allowed to tell me I can’t buy a nuclear warhead,” — Bryce M. King

Well, disregarding the obvious fact that there is a bit of a difference between simple hand guns and nuclear weapons (the latter of which will always victimize innocent civilians whereas the former can clearly be used as a measure of self defense against aggressors), the answer would be no. Government itself, in this case the U.S. has no problem amassing these weapons of destruction itself, and even being the only country in the world to use them against another (while wanting to deny other nations this right). Governments do not have a legitimate moral right to deny people rights they claim for themselves, regardless of any claim to myth-based moral authority. So at the very least, any government that wants to forbid the sale of nuclear weapons to private citizens has no moral right to claim the right to own them itself. Regarding the differences between simple fire-arms and nuclear weapons, this so-called response fails in any sense to address why background checks ought to be implemented for fire-arms. Using reductio ad absurdum does not change this fact.

“guns are not products, they are weapons,” — Phoenix Kahlo

Eh, weapons are a category of products, dear. Just like pens, furniture, or cars are a category of products. Weapons are produced; whatever is produced is called a product, therefore weapons are products. Jeez, no wonder reason works no magic on the brains of some of these people.

“Tell that to the kids who died at sandy hook. Or columbine,” — William Tanassi-Dreyer

You mean kids who were slaughtered in gun free zones, where only criminals and psychopaths can be in the possession of guns because they don’t care about gun control laws or background checks (only law abiding citizens do) anyway? Yeah, tell that to the kids who died at Sandy Hook or Columbine, because they were butchered as a result of nobody having a right to carry weapons for self-defense purposes. Dumbass.

“I’ll bet a lot of junior high kids would like a flamethrower. So that’s ok?,” — by Jim Rush

Why, do you know any? Maybe you should do a better job raising your kids, instead of looking at the law to fix all your ridiculous hypothetical problems preventively.

I bet you have a really cynical view of the mental stability of junior high kids, parents of kids who want flamethrowers, and the manufacturers and sellers of flamethrowers. What is ok for any junior high school kid to possess is dependent on two things: parental permission, and the lack of the use of any product for violent purposes. We punish people on the basis of aggression, not the mere possibility that they may commit aggression, otherwise knives, baseball bats and cars should not be available to anyone any more than flamethrowers should be. You think laws or background checks are going to worry the kind of people that actually want to use flamethrowers? So nice try with your flamethrower example. To answer this question in the most literal sense: yes, it would be ok for junior high kids to like having a flamethrower. Liking to have something is not a crime even now.

“so how would you apply that to automobiles and car insurance… unless you think 5 year olds should be allowed on the highway, you can’t stand by your ridiculously general statement. in the case of guns and automobiles, there are significant safety issues that put the rest of society at risk. i for one, would not want someone on the highway that can’t pass a drivers test or read a road sign, even an adult that could reach the pedals, for both their sake and mine, nor would I want a violent convict or other “struggling” person stockpiling guns. further, under your logic, should we allow otc narcotics to be offered to random children shopping at target? why should we let the government tell us they can’t???,” — Cora Gilmore Wenk

Yes, why should we? Who are they to know better for us what is good for us than we ourselves can? Have you missed the part that like the rest of us, politicians are people? You are one of those that think that politicians magically have moral superiority compared to the rest of us, and thus have a legitimate moral authority to both lecture and rule us. Do you think 5 year olds can reach the gas pedal (hey, YOU used this ridiculous example, not me)? Do you think his parents would allow it? Do you think car salespeople would sell cars to (apparently quite rich) 5 year olds because all car salespeople are wanton sociopaths? Knives and rat poison also come with safety issues, yet no one is required to get a permit or license before hand. Safety issues with cars? So we have no irresponsible drivers, accidents, drunk driving and car pile-ups right now in the case of licensed drivers? How come, if licenses take care of safety issues, licensed drivers are harming people all the time? The entire issue of unwanted drivers being on roads is solved by privatizing all roads so private citizens will decide what is or is not allowed on their roads (but we all know how you liberals feel about shrinking government to the bare essentials, don’t we, so you don’t really care about solutions to the problems you claim are so great). Eh, darling, criminals and psycho’s will get guns regardless, because they are criminals and psycho’s. They have a tendency not to care about the law or about getting a permit. No, we should not allow narcotics to be offered to kids. Want to know why? Because they are KIDS. This discussion deals with adults and adult responsibility versus government interference. The question is should government interfere with which products ADULTS want to buy. We should allow narcotics to be offered to adults, because what any grown up person wants to consume is their business, and what any grown person wants to own (such as guns) is also their business.

“I know, right? I should be able to get myself a hammer and a chisel, and set up my own neurosurgery practice. Big gub-mint can’t tell me I need no got-dang medical license!,” — Tom Robson

That’s exactly right. If some retard gives someone permission to perform neurosurgery on him with a hammer and chisel, that is his prerogative. Wouldn’t the world immediately advance in terms of IQ? Would be horrible for big gub-mint to just allow people to do what they want with those whose permission they get. Unlike conscripting people unwillingly into an army to fight, kill and die in wars that only serve their own interests, for example. Or rob people from their earnings to fund such wars with armies of volunteer assassins. Or to force people to buy health insurance against their will. Or to fund bureaucracies that use paramilitary tactics in apprehending and jailing people for smoking weed or snorting cocaine. Or to use violence against those who resist the government stealing their cattle because private property in America is an illusion. Or to spy on civilians en masse through the NSA, or… et cetera. Yes, letting two or more individuals voluntarily deal with each other in the way they deem fit is beyond the pail for any reasonable person. What we need is a big gub-ment to rule over us, rob us, lecture us, restrict us, censor us, enslave us, kidnap us, kill us, indebt us, and do any other reprehensible thing in the book to us. That is what a free country is all about.

It is funny in a way that liberals cannot help themselves but use reductio ad absurdum to oppose a common sense viewpoint that government ought not to determine what people can or cannot buy. But then they’ve never been the most reason-based bunch in the book. So the right to buy guns flies off into the realm of nuclear weapons, flamethrowers for kids, or a medieval neurosurgery practice. Because who wouldn’t be against caution when it comes to those, right? So why is the same reductio ad absurdum not extended to every single product and use thereof that may hypothetically pose a danger to anyone? Why not regulate straight to hell the entirety of whatever rolls of production lines?

Why, that would be ridiculous. Or, judging by the fact that i am talking about progressives, i should be really careful what i’m asking for.